The original 3D Studio lasted 4 releases on the DOS platform.While the original development team (the Yost Group) expanded and went on to create 3D Studio MAX, it was completely rewritten for Windows NT (version 3.51 at the time) as a native 32-bit, object-oriented program with extensive multi-threading and extensability.

(I know, Unreal papa Tim Sweeny has a Max->Unreal translator inside Unrealed, but I have yet to meet a programmer who can figure out how he did it:) Are you kidding me?? That's an extremely simple algorithm - at the simplest level, all it takes is subdividing all the polygons until everything is a triangle - problem solved. A triangle can't be concave. That said, I've never used Unrealed, but I'm guessing this is how it does it (or partially, anyway - it can stop subdividing into triangles if the polygon it's subdividing is now convex). Walk among the vast line of the gamers out there and ask them if this really makes a difference? As the article pointed out 'What a brilliant idea.

Half the world's Mod makers are probably using illegal full versions of 3D Studio MAX already, so it's not as if Autodesk is going to lose any money on the deal.' I guess not, they only have thoughts of making some, and so be it. They have to make their money, but don't let them think i'm going to appreciate something that they should have been doing in the first place.

No, there just trying to get in the good graces of the gaming community by offering a half-version of it and saying it is 'free'. 'Is Autodesk trying to put the software pirates out of business or something? Nope, there's a simple explanation, but a surprising one', the article goes on to say. They claim that, and get this:), 'this free, cut-down version of 3D Studio MAX is for game players'.

Well, leave it to me to express my gratitude. If you define using it right as putting it all back in the cardboard box, then using it as a paperweight, then maybe Score:2 (Insightful?) Purlease, give me strength. Here's a refrain I'd like to here more people saying: 'Linux is great' 'Windows NT/2000 is great' 'Linux crashes' 'Windows NT/2000 crashes' 'Linux is right for some tasks' 'Windows NT/2000 is right for some tasks' 'Blender runs brilliantly in Windows NT/2000' 'Blender runs brilliantly in Linux' There is no difference to the end user between Linux and Windows NT/2000.

Us nerds may get heated about Microsoft, but at root, both OSes are pretty good, and we could easily use either to get an honest days work done. Grafik ochistki osmotra i remonta svetiljnikov seti osvescheniya obrazec. I write this from a Windows 2000 PC that has not blue-screened since installation (Day one of CD going to select customers) and which runs Povray/Blender/gimp/ssh etc. All day without complaint (gimp crashes, but it's not exactly a mainstream Windows NT app, and the crashes have dropped since the latest release).

My home machine runs RH6.2 in much the same way. Your mileage may vary, but telling us about third-hand experience of a troublesome installation doesn't really advance the discussion, does it?

The critical thing is indeed the license. Open Source still means something quite different to publicity agents than to programmers.

If it were something like the MPL, that would indeed be reason to cheer. And GPL even more so.

If they just mean that they are displaying the source code, that's quite nice, but nothing to get too excited about. The crucial questions are 'Can you distribute altered versions of the code?' , and (if so) 'What restrictions are placed on redistributing the code?'

I like to get code with the 'just don't sue us' restriction, but even most individuals don't like it much when they're releasing code. The scholastic tradition prefers the BSD style license: 'See what I've done!'